Uprooted Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.

Saturday, 8 June 2013

The March to Jerusalem- undertaken by the Muslim Brothers of
Jordan as part of the functions carried on by the Global March to Jerusalem starting on June the 7th- was something different this year . The Muslim Brothers of Jordan had already announced – as early as May the 23rd – their participation in the function with the blessings of their king …Abdallah and his permission .But instead of heading to Jerusalem they stopped in Sweyma -valley of Jordan – where they forgot about Jerusalem and al Aqsa and Palestine and started – as good Muslim Brothers- rallying against al Assad and screaming victory to FSA.

Not only this but they started insulting the Lebanese Resistance and – upon seeing the correspondent of al Manar TV- they attacked him and tried to confiscate his equipment .

This is how the rallying for Palestine and for the liberation of the Holy City changed into a demonstration in support of the FSA against the Lebanese Resistance . This is how the March for Jerusalem turned out to be the March for Israel since the cooperation between FSA and Israel has been disclosed in the number of Israeli weapons caught with the thugs of the opposition in al Qusayr and the hosting of Israel of the wounded and injured thugs providing them with medical care .

The Muslim brothers of Jordan must have caught the opportunity of this March to express their support for the thugs of the opposition and express- in open demonstrations – their sectarian hatred since such things are not allowed in Jordan .
We call for honest supporters of the cause and of the Resistance and who are part of this initiative like George Galloway and bishop Abdallah Hanna and Layth Shbaylat

The story of al Qusayr is something of the past, . The total region has returned to Syrian hegemony after spending two years under thugs’ rule . 10 thousand thugs were present in al Qusayr mostly from al Nusra , there were like in a forteress with the biggest arsenal, and the heavy sophisticated equipment they had , had no par , they had evolved means of transportation that range from motorcycles to cars and trucks and tanks , and they had Israeli weapons . They were trained troops of various nationalities that engaged in special operations and also snipers , they had dug kilometers of tunnels were they hid and from where they could get supplies even to Homs . The whole area of al Qusayr -which is the vicinity of Homs- has fallen into the hands of the Syrian army including al Mas’oodiyya and al Salihiyya and al Bouyeda ,these towns have fallen one after the other and the thugs have fled or get caught . Negotiations are taking place to hospitalize 400 wounded thugs in Lebanon . all talks about massacres happening in al Qusayr are mere lies . Not ONE innocent civilian was killed . The thugs got even to evacuate their families and were granted this permission that ended up to be very costly for the Syrian army and for the Resistance because -after letting out their families- the thugs did not surrender as promised but attacked the Resistance which caused many casualties . The head of the FSA Salim Idriss asked for the spread of UN forces on the Syrian/Lebanese border expanding their role as defined in resolution 1701 to include the northern borders, something that the FSA had no right to suggest according to experts since they do not represent a country .As for the situation on Al Qunaitra in the Golan Heights, the thugs of the opposition had attacked- lately -the Syrian army at the borders with Occupied Golan. This come as a response to the defeat of al Qusayr. . There is fear that the thugs of the opposition will form like a militia affiliated to the Israeli forces the same way the Lebanese Southern army was affiliated to the IDF during the occupation of south Lebanon. This comes in handy, especially if the Resistance in Golan is to start soon. Israelis had opened their borders to the thugs to receive medical care on many occasions and the UN is considering evacuating its forces and Austria had taken the decision to withdraw from the UNDOV.

Did you know the US State Department has a “Special Envoy on the Holocaust”? Did you know they are now throwing Yiddish words into the national spelling bee?

Did you know that public radio stations recently broadcast a 50-minute feature highlighting the fact that Superman’s creator was Jewish and that the original comic book character was intentionally portrayed as being full of “diaspora sadness”?

Some of what follows may sound like it belongs in the realm of parody or burlesque, but what it goes to show is that the “Judaization” of America—a process that has been underway for several decades now—has truly begun to reach absurd levels.
The holocaust was over nearly 70 years ago. Few people in America today, relatively speaking, lived through it, and the vast bulk of the country’s current population had not even been born yet when US servicemen returned home from the war and began what has quaintly been come to be known as the “baby boom.” So why on earth would we have need of a “Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues”? We don’t. But there is indeed such an official position—within the US State Department.

The envoy’s duties are described as developing and implementing “U.S. policy with respect to the return of Holocaust-era assets to their rightful owners, compensation for wrongs committed during the Holocaust, and Holocaust remembrance.” A top priority seems to be pressuring central and eastern European countries into paying holocaust reparations, or as the official State Department job description puts it, “Much of the Office’s work relates to bringing closure to issues left outstanding during the Cold War.”

In my article Swindler’s List: A Brief Look at the Holocaust Reparations Racket I discussed what commonly is referred to as the “second round” of holocaust reparations, a period immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall in which Jewish claims negotiators turned their attention to the former East Block countries. Prior to this time, these nations had escaped paying reparations for their alleged crimes of the holocaust period, but with the fall of the Soviet Union suddenly they were vulnerable. Jews began demanding payments, in some cases gargantuan amounts, from such countries as Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic. Of course to one degree or another there was resistance at being bled in such a manner.

Enter the US as enforcer. In the Swindler’s List article I discussed how class action lawsuits began to be filed in US courts, how the House Banking Committee began holding hearings on the matter, and how prominent US officials, including former President Clinton, called for the “terrible injustice of the past” to be rectified. I also mentioned that, in addition to the countries of Eastern Europe, attention began also to be focused on major Swiss banks. Here again there was resistance, but gradually, one by one, the Swiss banks, too, began to pay up, and as I mentioned in my article, the Holocaust racketeers have so far managed to extort some $1.25 billion from them.
At any rate, presiding over this mess and keeping the spigot flowing seems to be the “special envoy’s” major area of concern.

The position is currently filled by one Douglas Davidson, who has had a lengthy government career, both at the State Department and as an assistant press secretary at the White House, and who is actually mentioned by name in a recent article in the JTA. That story focuses on the reparations issue as it pertains to Poland, a country “seen as having the world’s worst record on the restitution of Jewish property lost during the Holocaust.” How wretched! But of course efforts are underway to put an end to this impertinence. “Officials of Jewish groups seeking restitution say they will be making a renewed push to put the restitution issue on Congress’ agenda,” and as you might imagine, Congress is one place they won’t have any trouble finding ample support. Why already, it seems, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), co-chair of the senate’s Committee on Security and cooperation in Europe, has “sought reassurances” from Secretary of State John Kerry that he would “continue to press Poland on the issue.”
Be advised this could be tricky, though, as Poland not only is a “stalwart American ally,” but also a “bulwark against an increasingly belligerent Russia,” and ratcheting up the pressure on the Polish government too strenuously could pose an “acute dilemma.” Jews—both those in the US government as well as the Jewish organizations gunning for supplementary reparations payments—will need to proceed very cautiously. Not to fear, however.

Our man Douglas Davidson is “deeply involved in advancing the restitution issue,” the JTA informs us.
So that’s the State Department’s “Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues.” Now you might think that other matters of concern to Jews, such as, say, rising levels of anti-Semitism, would also come under this official’s purview, but au contraire. The same US State Department that employs Davidson has on-staff also a “Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.” This position, we are informed here, “was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004,” and is currently filled by Ira Forman. Formerly head of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Forman, it seems, is a rather temperamental sort. Another article, yet again from the JTA, describes him as “an unabashed partisan” as well as “a very Jewish unabashed partisan,” and some concern is expressed that all this unabashedness could prove to be a problem. But the writer reassuringly offers the view that in her famous opinion Forman “has the ability to step outside of his partisan self.” Now aren’t we relieved?
Yes, it’s a bird, it’s a plane…etc., etc.

On June 14, Jewish Hollywood’s latest Superman remake will open in theaters, and last week public radio stations in America obligingly aired what in essence was a 50-minute promo of the new film. Highlighted in the program, a podcast of which can be found here, is the really, really super-incredibly interesting fact that Superman’s creators were two Jewish high school boys—and in addition to hearing all about their lives, triumphs, disappointments and what-not, we also are treated to comments from analysts who give us the scoop on how the Superman story strongly reflects certain aspects of Jewish identity…and of course how this is especially so in the new movie! Krypton, for instance, is described as being “like an ideal Jewish suburb—all the men are highly scientific and cerebral.” And then there is the story of the baby Superman blasting off from the planet in a rocket just before it explodes, landing on earth, and being raised by a Kansas couple. Now how could anyone possibly overlook the parallel here with the tale of the infant Moses being found in a basket in some reeds along the Nile River and raised by the Pharaoh’s daughter? Huh? That’s right!

The Superman story was inspired by the Book of Exodus! You didn’t know that, did you?
So…exploding planet (“the end of a great civilization,” says one commenter), baby comes to earth…um…this must mean Superman is now living in, yep, you guessed it—the diaspora!

Superman is a tragic figure. I think he’s full of sadness. I think it’s diaspora sadness. He’s away from home. He never really belongs. Home doesn’t exist to him anymore. Home has been destroyed. The new home that he’s made he can never quite be himself in to the degree that he has to have two different personalities.

So says one of the erudite and very cerebral analysts interviewed on the program. By the way, we are informed also as an aside that the creators of Batman and Robin and Captain America were Jewish as well. Why so many Jews involved in comic book productions? The program gives us an answer. It is simply a matter of “the bookish Jew who just couldn’t get a franchise in the slick magazines because he was Jewish.”
This of course isn’t the first time public radio stations in America have demonstrated navel-contemplation-level preoccupations with things Jewish. Earlier this year the Mondoweiss blog posted an article entitled, “NPR Can’t Stop Talking About Jews,” containing the following lead paragraph:

The article is authored by Henry Norr, who also mentions a program on a woman who runs a website dedicated co collecting customized Passover haggadot; a book entitled FDR and the Jews and an interview with its two authors (both Jewish); a feature on a Lower East Side store that sells “Jewish soulfood”; and finally not one, but two, reports on Philip Roth’s 80th birthday—all airing on NPR that same month. And that’s in addition to all NPR’s coverage of Israel.
Norr tells of a search he did at NPR.org in an effort to assess the number of times major American religions are mentioned on air. He calls it a “pretty crude indicator,” but found the results “nevertheless quite striking.” Jews were third highest on the list, with 423 mentions.

They were topped by Muslims and Catholics, with 608 and 460 respectively. This may seem surprising, but upon closer inspection Norr found that Muslims were mentioned in “stories about international politics, particularly past, present, and likely future U.S. wars,” while the Catholic number “was obviously inflated” by stories on pedophile priests and the recent election of the new pope. Other religions were mentioned as follows:
Baptist—92
Methodist—52
Lutheran—12
Pentecostal—15
Presbyterian—23
Mormon—106
Episcopalian/Anglican—7
Evangelical—99
Churches of Christ—6
Jehovah’s Witness—3
Buddhist—47
Factoring in instances of the word “Protestant” and “Christian,” Norr found that Christians (collectively), who comprise 75.99 percent of the population, tallied up a total of 581 mentions.

Now compare that to the 423 mentions of Jews, who make up less than two percent of the population. Norr’s conclusion? That NPR “devotes a level of loving attention to Jewish traditions, culture, and history that it displays toward no other religious or ethnic group.”
Perhaps it comes as no great surprise, then, that contestants in the national spelling bee are being asked to spell Yiddish words. A 13-year-old boy by the name of Arvind Mahankali recently took top place in the competition—by spelling the word “knaidel.”

http://youtu.be/XjrSGsNE2Tc
With absurdities reaching the levels we’re now seeing, non-Jews in America had pr

“Syria is the backbone of the resistance, and the resistance cannot sit idly by while its back is being broken.” – Seyyid Hassan Nasrallah, May 25TH Speech

Prensa Latina Damascus, Jun 6
The victory of the Syrian Arab Army in the central region of Qusseir has dealt a harsh blow to rebel groups that are trying to overthrow the government since the government’s triumph has cut one of the main routes for soldiers and war supplies arriving from abroad.
Armed opposition groups, mainly radical Islamists and of the al-Nusra Front, linked to Al Qaeda, had taken over the city and neighboring areas bordering Lebanon some months ago.
Although Damascus repeatedly denounced the forced flight of tens of thousands of inhabitants due to the violence of the so-called rebels, who even used civilians as human shields, a portion of the international community averted its eyes from that situation.
However, when the offensive and siege against Qusseir began a few weeks ago, international figures and media started showing their concern and attacked authorities for alleged genocide and for preventing Red Cross access to rescue those injured.
The permanent Syrian Ambassador to the U.N. Council of Human Rights, Faisal al-Hamwi, accused that group of recent maneuvers aimed at blaming the government through reports he described as partial, excessive and politically manipulated.
Regarding the importance of recapturing Qusseir, a source from the military command who preferred to remain anonymous told Prensa Latina on Wednesday that this is a strategic triumph that allows the Armed Forces to extend its control over the center of the country and begin liberating the northern areas of Aleppo, Idleb and Hama.
The zone was within the rebel controlled area and located near the Tripoli port, from where many foreign sourced shipments of war materiel arrived.
The source stressed that nearly 800 people had deserted the opposition in a single day.
During the actions, nearly 930 terrorists died, including more than 300 from different Arab nations while those from other countries were arrested and 1,500 were injured, the source noted.
The army seized large amounts of missiles, C-4 explosives, grenades, machine guns, mortars, munitions, maps, computers and other equipment, while groups of sappers neutralized dozens of explosives placed in houses and roads, as shown on local television.
Victory in al-Qseir Sends Clear Message to All Those Involved in Aggression against Syria Jun 06, 2013

DAMASCUS, (SANA)- Our armed forces succeeded early Wednesday to restore security and stability to the city of al-Qseir and clear it of the terrorists, the General Command of the Army and the Armed Forces said in a statement Wednesday.

The statement clarified that the army seized full control of al-Qseir after “a series of accurate successful operations carried out in the city and the villages and towns surrounding it.”

It added that the operations resulted in the killing of a large number of terrorists, the surrender of some others and the escape of the rest, noting that army units are now continuing to unlock roads, dismantle mines and remove barricades.

“The victory that was achieved at the hands of our brave soldiers sends a clear message to all those who are involved in the aggression against Syria, on top being the Zionist enemy and its agents in the region and tools on the ground,” the statement said.

“Our armed forces will remain ready to face any aggression against our dear homeland,” the General Command stressed.

“While affirming that their battle against terrorism will continue until restoring security and stability to each and every inch of the homeland, our armed forces stress at the same time that they will look with a merciful eye at those mislead gunmen who surrender and drop their weapons, whether those who fled al-Qseir or any area in Syria,” it added.

The General Command called upon the residents of al-Qseir to return to their homes and properties within days, stressing that “those whom the gunmen had used as human shields were all evacuated, with the injured being now treated.”

“Following their successive victories in the battle against organized and systematic terrorism, our armed forces stress that they will not hesitate to strike the gunmen wherever they are on any inch on Syria’s land,” the statement said.

“The homeland’s soil is sacred and can’t be desecrated, and whoever tries to desecrate it will end up either dead or surrendering,” it added.

The General Command indicated that the documents which have been gained and which prove the involvement of some Arab, regional and foreign parties in terrorism in Syria are now under scrutiny and will be made public at the right time.

The General Command concluded its statement by expressing the Syrian Arab Army’s thanks to “the proud Syrian people for always standing by their army morally and for their embracement and support.”

The army, the statement continued, “promises that it will always be up to the challenge and at the same level of steadfastness until achieving victory God willing.”

HOMS,(SANA) - A few days ago, the citizens of al-Qseir city were complaining of the terrorists’ acts in the city of looting, sabotaging and targeting citizens, contrary to nowadays where the Syrian flag is fluttering in the middle of the city, thanks to the Syrian army.

Having restored the security and stability to al-Qseir by the Syrian army, the Syrian citizens gathered in the main squire in the city to return to their houses and participate in rebuilding and cleaning the city.
Secretary of the al-Baath Arab Socialist Party in Homs Subhhi Harb paid a visit to the city and stressed that Syria’s enemies attempt to weaken it and keep it away from the resistance, hailing the achievements of the Syrian army in al-Qseir.

For his part, Governor of Homs Ahmad Munier Mohammad visited the city accompanied with the directors of the service departments in the province to put plans for rehabilitating all sectors sabotaged by the terrorists.

The citizens stressed that they paid the price of some misled people in the city, voicing their regret over the sabotage in the city and thanking Syrian army for cleaning it from the terrorists.
B. Mousa / Mazen
Lavrov: International Players Can’t Decide on behalf of the Syrians Jun 06, 2013

KALININGRAD, (SANA)- Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, stressed that the international players cannot make decisions on behalf of the Syrian people, saying the task of those players is to influence the parties into participating in the international conference on Syria.

“The situation in Syria raises everybody’s concern and negatively affects the whole region,” Lavrov told a press conference following a meeting of the foreign ministers of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) in the Russian region of Kaliningrad.

He warned of the aggravating differences and the dangerous operations taking place in the neighboring countries and those which witnessed the so-called ‘Arab Spring’.

He stressed the need that the international community determine its position on whether to support those seeking to use force for regime change notwithstanding the civilian victims or those who insist on the peaceful solution.

Lavrov reiterated Russia’s firm stance on solving the crisis in Syria peacefully, “which is why we presented the initiative to hold an international conference on Syria in Geneva and worked hard to get to implement the Geneva communiqué agreed upon in June of last year.”

He pointed out that the international conference cannot be quickly held “given the acute nature of differences and contradictions which accumulated in the Syrian society.”

“The ongoing talk now is on the need for the participation of the government and representatives of the opposition in the negotiations and this is essential, but there are some opposition forces that don’t want to take part in the conference and believe that it wouldn’t help in solving the crisis,” the Russian Foreign Minister said.

He noted that the National Coordination Body wants to participate independently in the conference and that the Kurdish Council wants to participate as an organization.

“All the parties concerned should be given the opportunity to take part in this conference, which is very important to reach a compromise and secure stability in the region,” said Lavrov.

He highlighted that the main task of Geneva communiqué is to secure the forming of a transitional commission on the basis of agreement between the government and the opposition, noting that Wednesday’s tripartite meeting between Russia, the US and the UN focused on these issues.

Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Ministry said the tripartite meeting which took place Wednesday between Russia, the US and the UN in Geneva is considered an advanced step in the preparations to hold an international conference on Syria.

“The ongoing contacts will be dedicated to that issue in the next stage in order to reach a final agreement on the general concepts for the international conference on Syria,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement published on its website on Thursday.

The statement pointed out that it is originally scheduled that the tripartite meeting will be resumed on June 25th in Geneva.

The Ministry noted that yesterday’s meeting focused on the need for appropriate representation in the international conference for all the blocs of the Syrian opposition and not just those which enjoy foreign support.

It clarified that the Russian side stressed during the meeting the importance of the participation of the neighboring countries of Syria and other influential regional sides like Iran that could make a significant contribution to the efforts to solve the crisis in Syria.

The statement said that the participants agreed that the main goal of the conference is to launch a dialogue between the Syrians to reach the point of fully implementing the Geneva Communiqué on June 30th of last year.

It added that the participants also highlighted the importance that the Syrians themselves shape the solutions regarding building the future of their country in the framework of the political process with all forms of support from the foreign sides.

A Russia-US-UN meeting was held Wednesday in the context of preparations for holding the international conference on Syria which was agreed on by the Russian and U.S. foreign ministers during the latter’s visit to Moscow last month with the aim to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Syria.

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Alexander Lukashevich said that the armed terrorist groups in al-Qseir area in Homs had used the area as a conduit for smuggling weapons and the infiltration of foreign mercenaries, adding that they carried out ”sectarian cleansing” there.

Lukashevich said in a statement on Wednesday that restoring security and stability to al-Qseir is a ”clear military success,” adding that ”no one should harbor illusions that Syria’s problems can be solved by the use of force.”

”Settling the crisis in Syria is only possible through peaceful political means, i.e. through dialogue among the Syrians,” he added.

Lukashevich said that the latest developments in Syria confirm the Syrian government’s concerns regarding a possible use of chemical materials by the Syrian opposition for justifying external military intervention.

He added that Moscow shares Damascus concerns on the information that extremist groups and terrorists in Turkey, Iraq and Syria own toxic materials, devices and technologies necessary for making a chemical weapon.

The spokesman added that the information prove once again the need for responding to Syria’s request for starting an inquiry into the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian opposition in Khan Al-Assal town in Aleppo countryside on March 19.

The capture by Syrian army of the strategic al-Qusayr border city became the talk of the day, as analysts told Agence France Presse that al-Qusayr achievement is a major victory for President Bashar al-Assad, who is now better placed than ever if a US-Russian plan for peace talks materializes.The regime has "the advantage right now" while the insurgents are "losing morale", said analyst Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Doha Center.

He believed the Syrian forces, who are experienced in guerrilla warfare, will remain engaged wherever the regime needs them.
"On a psychological level, this is very important, not just for Syria but for the international community," added Hamid. "In any peace conference or negotiations, it puts the regime at an advantage."

Now, the insurgents are "reluctant to go to Geneva. This is the worst time for them to sit at the negotiating table because they have less leverage today than they have had in months," noted Hamid.

For his part, Khattar Abou Diab, who teaches political science at Paris Sud University told AFP that "the regime appears very strong because it can now take control from Damascus to the coast."
Moreover, the military analyst at the Dubai-based Inegma center, Naji Malaeb, said "the regime is meanwhile seeking to "cleanse key cities Aleppo (in the north), Damascus and Homs [in the center] before any international conference is held."
The town is also important "because it lies on a rebel supply route" from majority Sunni areas in northern Lebanon to Homs in central Syria, indicated Malaeb.

Thursday, 6 June 2013

Erdogan is going through a critical moment and has been exposed by the US administration- especially after his last visit the USA- where he was scolded and blamed for allowing Muslim fanatics and terrorists to move as they please in and out of Turkey. The majority of Turks that have taken to streets all over the country- in many protests and demonstrations against the government ...- are not affiliated directly to political parties , they represent different forces on the ground and they are between eighteen and thirty years of age , 70% of them are not affiliated to political parties but are students and actors and writers and intellectuals . Around 70% of the of the Turks oppose Erdogan’s external policy regarding Syria among them 40% of his own political party , the AKP. Not to forget that Turkey- labeled as a democracy by the western establishment - has the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the world .

Erdogan had invested a lot in his external policy in Syria and has introduced terrorists and weapons to Syria calling for deposing Assad and hosting - constantly - the Syrian opposition supplying it with most sophisticated equipment and training the thugs in the refugee camps of Hatay and recruiting fighters from all over the countries paying them in advance .. All this has turned Turkey into a thug state that has sacrificed secularism for an Islam compatible with the World Order Schemes and Israel. This battle against Syria seemed to be the battle of life and death for Erdogan and he was invited by NATO to play the most important PART IN IT . Still he was the first one to be sacrificed at the alter of the World Order defeat in al Qusayr. This defeat, in addition to this internal failures and acting as a sultan and a dictator, hastened his political defeat and exposed internally as well .

We are approaching a new phase in the Syrian crisis. By all indications, it does not appear as though what is being called “Geneva II” will produce a quick solution to the conflict.
At best, the conference will represent an acknowledgement on the part of the opposition that Bashar al-Assad cannot be toppled, and in turn, the regime will demonstrate its willingness to negotiate with those who have influence over armed groups on the ground.
That the meeting will not produce a quick settlement is due to many factors, the most important of which has to do with the fact that the balance of forces in the fighting has turned dramatically since preparation began to hold a second round of negotiations in Geneva.

Geneva II is nevertheless an important undertaking for the Syrian people who understandably want the bloodbath to end. Unfortunately, the time for a solution is not upon us yet.In addition, the opposition is having a hard time – both on the political and military levels – to coordinate their efforts and unite around a set of demands. This is compounded by disagreements and tensions among those countries backing the opposition.
Those following the battles on the various fronts report that armed groups are in a state of disarray, accompanied by growing discontent among those living in opposition-controlled areas, who have grown intolerant of the fighters’ more unsavory practices, such as looting and kidnapping or imposing a radical version Islamic law.
The armed opposition factions continue to fantasize that the West is on the verge of throwing itself into the fray and ending the war on their behalf. They simply refuse to believe that their regional and international backers are doing all they can to support them.

For a year and a half now, the opposition has been campaigning its powerful allies to intervene directly in the war, either by sending troops or by creating a no-fly zone. And while oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar spent millions of dollars funding the opposition, their media outlets worked around the clock – with the help of the Turkish and Jordanian intelligence services, among others – to encourage defections from the Syrian armed forces and other state institutions.
On an international diplomatic level, Washington, London, and France left no stone unturned in their attempt to censure and sanction Damascus, even though most of these forces know that UN Security Council resolutions and unilateral sanctions have a limited impact on the regime.

Despite all such efforts, the regime remained largely intact, with its armed forces suffering few, if any, major defections of note. Worse yet, a significant portion of the Syrian people remained loyal to the regime throughout the crisis, with many who had previously sympathized with the opposition returning to the loyalist camp.
It’s unclear what makes so many in the opposition continue to believe that the West is willing to intervene on their behalf. They don’t seem to realize that any such step could easily spark an open-ended regional war, something that Washington and Europe have no appetite for at this time.

Geneva II is nevertheless an important undertaking for the Syrian people who understandably want the bloodbath to end. Unfortunately, the time for a solution is not upon us yet.

The certainty with which the French and British governments have announced proof of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict presages an escalation of western intervention there.
The samples tested at Porton Down (yes, Britain’s own chemical warfare research unit) have proved positive although even the government’s certainty cannot be assured beyond doubt.

As a ‘senior British official’ told the Guardian ‘Are we confident in our means of collection, and are we confident that it points to the regime's use of sarin? Yes. Can we prove it with 100% certainty? Probably not.’

Following on almost immediately from the EU decision to end its arms embargo to Syria, which will enable Britain and France to ship arms to the opposition from August, the revelations about chemical weapons could not come at a more convenient time for William Hague. The foreign secretary is following up his bombing of Libya in 2011 (casualties at least 30,000 dead) with another attempt at regime change in the Middle East.

Aided and abetted by his counterpart in France, Hague is trying to escalate an already deadly war. This is despite protests from aid agencies that have argued that this development will only worsen the war.
A new report by the UN Human Rights Commission echoes this point. It covers the period early this year and carries out interviews with those affected by the war. It describes a worsening situation in Syria, with war crimes on both sides, although the majority from the government side. It also makes it very clear that proposals like the lifting of the arms embargo can only have the effect of worsening the conflict and therefore the human suffering.

‘War crimes and crimes against humanity have become a daily reality in Syria where the harrowing accounts of victims have seared themselves on our conscience. There is a human cost to the increased availability of weapons. Transfers of arms heighten the risk of violations leading to more civilian deaths and injuries. A diplomatic surge is the only path to a political settlement. Negotiations must be inclusive, and must represent all facets of Syria’s cultural mosaic.’

This is a message that the Western powers and their followers seem not to want to hear. Instead, whatever their differences about the exact nature and timing of intervention, they fear that their goal of regime change is looking more remote. They worry that the Assad government and its allies is regaining the initiative in the war. They also fear that the proposed peace conference in Geneva will hinder them in this goal.

Meanwhile the situation in the Middle East is fast running out of control, most recently with fighting in Lebanon and Iraq spreading from Syria. Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan, facing huge protests across the country, is deeply unpopular over his role in the Syrian war.

None of this appears to bother the British government, which has backed various forms of financial, military and surveillance intervention for two years now, often carried out by reactionary governments such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. No doubt as the war escalates we will be told that there should be more intervention in order to end the war. The problem is, at every stage such intervention has helped escalate it. So perhaps a change in policy might be a solution.

That’s certainly the approach that many people in Britain would like its government to take. A recent poll in the Observer showed less than a quarter of those polled favoured military intervention. This is because there is a widespread sense that what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq was wrong and that those wars have only brought further war, dispossession and terrorism. The same poll showed that nearly three quarters (72%) believe that the UK can no longer afford to act as a major military power.

In other words, Britain should stop intervening in other people’s countries and stop waging wars in regions that it wants to control. Its government should also stop lying about its real aims in the region, which have everything to do with power and control, and nothing to do with bringing peace.

The victory in al Qusayr achieved by the Syrian Army and the Resistance is more than a victory over the opposition , it is the victory of the axis of the Resistance over the World Order and Israel and this victory has more than one implication because it intrinsically means that the Political Islam of the Muslim Brothers and Erdogan- that ruled after the Arab spring- has bee...n defeated and will not recover from such defeat . It means also that the military Islam of al Qa’ida has been defeated as well. These two defeats will put term , on one hand, to the moderate Islam compatible with Israel and, on the other, to the schemes of partition and disintegration of Arab countries and societies that benefit NATO countries and Israel and started with the Arab Spring . True committed Islam incompatible with Israel comes out victorious, as well as all the forces opposed to Israel and the World Order. This victory has turned the page and a new chapter will start altogether whereby the axis of the Resistance will keep progressing and growing in the right direction , and will defeat consequently all the forces opposed to it.

More from al Qusayr . The reason why it took so long to enter al Qusayr is due to many reasons one of them that the thugs negotiated the evacuation of their families and their own surrender after handing in their weapons but , after committing themselves to the first part of the agreement and evacuating their families , they turned against their promise and fought instead of surrendering . This change was a set up and had for result to prolong the battle to a greater extent . Due to this, the Syrian army and the Resistance forces had to change their tactics in order to minimize their losses; they decided to encircle the place and cut off the supplies and enter it bit by bit cleansing one location at a time using heavy shelling .

The opposition who fought in al Qusayr were the FSA , the Muslim Brigades and the best forces of al Nusrat , very well trained with a very sophisticated equipment , especially communication devices, that the Syrian army was not able to penetrate in addition to the possession of evolved weapons that are not found everywhere . The thugs were not short of weapons but left behind them a great amount of these weapons. They belong to different nationalities and form a real army of mercenaries , they come from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Libya and Iraq and other countries and also from Australia , among them several women from Chechnya who worked as snipers . It is not known what caused them to flee the place at this point since they were not short of ammunitions and seemed to be determined to fight since they did not stick to their surrender agreement. Did they feel that their defeat was incumbent? It is almost sure that they had disagreed with each other to the point of shooting at one another maybe regarding the withdrawal from al Qusayr, or some other matter, whereby some of them accused the others of betrayal .

The conclusion is that they were defeated and fled the place and headed many kilometers further in al Dab’a among others where the battle is supposed to be resumed. Their losses amount up to one thousand casualties other than the injured ones and those who fled. One hundred martyrs fell in the other party.

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

Like Tony Blair before him, David Cameron took no interest in the world outside Britain before he entered No 10. They are both open to the charge that they have treated foreign affairs like a grand, theoretical abstraction Photo: Reuters

The longer a prime minister remains in 10 Downing Street, the more likely he or she is to go mad. Something of the sort happened to Gordon Brown and also, from 2003 onwards if not before, to Tony Blair. No prime minister has left office in full possession of his or her mental faculties since Jim Callaghan in early 1979.

One of David Cameron’s admirable qualities has been his sanity. He is unexcitable. He is not paranoid, does not conspire against his colleagues, sit up to the small hours of the morning brooding, or hurl pieces of crockery around the room when in a violent rage. He is not subject to sudden, irrational mood-swings.

None of this can or should be taken for granted, and surely Samantha Cameron can take some of the credit. “My job is to get him out of here sane,” she tells friends.

But the Prime Minister has been in the job for three years (and Tory leader for nearly eight), and watching him answer questions on the floor of the House on Monday afternoon, for the first time I started to wonder.

With Parliament back after the Whitsun recess, Mr Cameron made a statement that dealt principally with the civil war in Syria, and gave the belated parliamentary response to the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby. Many of his remarks were those of a man with only a tenuous grip on reality. What was missing was common sense. We have seen this many times before.

Sir Peter Tapsell, father of the Commons, said that Syria was now enduring what is “fundamentally a religious war between the Shia and the Sunni, which has raged within Islam for 1,300 years”.

Mr Cameron would not accept this point. “When I see the official Syrian opposition,” he replied, “I do not see purely a religious grouping; I see a group of people who have declared that they are in favour of democracy, human rights and a future for minorities, including Christians, in Syria. That is the fact of the matter.”

Then Jack Straw, a former foreign secretary, asked whether the Prime Minister agreed that Iran would have to be part of any peace deal. Mr Cameron failed to deal with this essential question.

At the time of the Iraq invasion 10 years ago, something very like this happened to Tony Blair. A moment came when he too entered a virtual world.

Like Mr Blair, Mr Cameron has come to advocate policy in a macabre vacuum, devoid of truth or understanding. He too displays a reluctance to accept the irksome realities of the human condition. Like Mr Blair, Mr Cameron had taken no interest in the world outside Britain before he entered No 10. They both learnt about foreign affairs as prime minister, and both are open to the charge that they treat the subject like a grand, theoretical abstraction.

From the start, Mr Cameron (just like Mr Blair in Iraq) has been happy to entertain the proposition that this Syrian conflict is in essence a struggle between good and evil – benevolent democrats and liberals fighting a virtuous struggle against the murderous tyrant Assad. In fact, the rebels were not nearly as good (and President Assad not as evil) as Mr Cameron has thought.

As a result of this, the Prime Minister has got it wrong from the start. He massively underestimated Assad’s support and staying power. He was absurdly contemptuous of the Russians (who have outmanoeuvred us all along). Above all, he has failed to understand the rebels.

Very much as Mr Blair and his American allies were duped by the impostor Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, so Mr Cameron has made the mistake of taking the Syrian National Coalition seriously. They are intelligent, educated, well-intentioned men in suits – hotel guerrillas – and as such irrelevant to what is now happening in Syria. The Prime Minister would do well to read the mea culpa published last week in Al-Monitor, by a pseudonymous writer from Aleppo who calls himself Edward Dark.

“So what went wrong?’ asks Mr Dark. “Or, to be more accurate, where did we go wrong? How did a once inspirational and noble popular uprising calling for freedom and basic human rights degenerate into an orgy of bloodthirsty sectarian violence, with depravity unfit for even animals?”

Mr Dark describes how the revolution has been captured by a collection of gangsters and fanatics. “This wasn’t what we revolted for,” he says in despair at the dreadful fate that has overcome the country he loves, “to replace one group of criminals with another.” Mr Dark now says he has given up on the revolution. He says that he has seen that the only way forward is “through reconciliation and a renunciation of violence”.

Yet Mr Cameron wants to escalate the fighting by arranging military support to the rebels. He told Parliament on Monday that he hopes this will “tip the balance” in their favour. Iran – in reality an essential part of any solution – will not be welcome at the negotiating table, and in Mr Cameron’s mind there is no future for Assad, which probably means that the war will drag on and on.

I dare say that the Prime Minister is sincere when he asserts that Syria is in the grip of a civil war, with democrats and human rights activists ranged up on one side against an evil dictator. I have not been to Syria, but it is clear to me that Sir Peter Tapsell is much closer to the truth.

Certainly, the liberal elite in which the Prime Minister places such hopes was involved at the beginning of the uprising. But armed elements funded and supplied by interested parties in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were also present from the start. Their fundamental aim was nothing to do with human rights and the protection of minorities. It was to destabilise and destroy President Assad, Iran’s closest ally in the region, and therefore assert Saudi dominance.

To what extent have Britain and America been complicit? It is hard to judge. What can be said with certainty is that over the past decade the Middle East, and to some extent the Islamic world, has broken down into two armed camps. On the one side are Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, backed by the United States and (quietly) Israel. To everyone’s enormous embarrassment, al-Qaeda is very firmly in this camp.
On the other side are Iran, Hizbollah and post-bellum Iraq, strongly backed by Russia and China. Viewed from this wider perspective, Mr Cameron’s claim to be on the side of democracy and human rights, and against dictatorship, is not merely fraudulent – it is patently ridiculous.

We are not on the side of democracy. As Sir Peter Tapsell hinted in the Commons, Britain has wholeheartedly backed the Sunni camp – Saudi, the Gulf States, and al-Qaeda – in its increasingly bloodthirsty and horrifying conflict against Shia Islam. There may be some very good reasons for this, but I do wish that the Prime Minister would re-engage with the real world, come out publicly, and explain what they are.

Head of Loyalty to Resistance parliamentary bloc, MP Mohammad Raad, said on Tuesday that Syrian opposition groups had occupied the Syrian border town of al-Qusayr with the aim of "attacking the resistance from behind its back."

"The thing that is immunizing and strengthening the resistance is the harmony among all the political forces that have embraced the path of resistance, and this is what's bothering the other partners in the country, who have been trying to drive a wedge or stir discord in order to infiltrate through and achieve their plot,” Raad stated.

During a memorial ceremony, Raad stressed that Hezbollah is ready to defend Lebanon against every Zionist arm, including the terrorist takfiri gangs fighting in al-Qusayr city.

"The rifle of the resistance is still pointed at the same Israeli enemy, but the enemy has created a new frontier behind our backs, near our Bekaa and North, with the aim of stabbing us in the back, employing a bunch of Takfiri remnants through conspiring with regressive oil countries that have nothing to do with democracy,” Raad noted.

"Hezbollah did not intervene in Syria, we rather intervened in Lebanon to defend Lebanon and its resistance and to protect the country," Raad elaborated.

"We only point our rifle at any target we believe is allying and conspiring with the Zionist enemy, because our rifle only fires on those who are allied with Israel or conspiring with it," Raad added.

The Syrian Army launched on May 19 a large-scale operation in al-Qusayr border town with Lebanon to clear the area of terrorist gangs and liberate the citizens stuck there.
Syria was hit by a violent unrest since mid-March 2011, where the Syrian government accuses foreign actors of orchestrating the conflict, by supporting the militant opposition groups with arms and money.

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,

Following is the full text of the interview:

Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.

President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?

President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.

Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.

President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well – many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.

Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?

President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send – a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.

Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.

President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself – some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?

President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?

President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties – mostly foreign – that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.

Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?

President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?

President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?

President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.

Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?

President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, – or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?

President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?

President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?

President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.

Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?

President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to – five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course – in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table – and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.

Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?

President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.

Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.

President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.

Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?

President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.

Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?

President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn’t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something – if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.

Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?

President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?

President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder – the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?

President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists – conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?

President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government – I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?

President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.

Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.